Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

Theft,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books 
are  reasons  for  disciplinary  action  and  may 
result  in  dismissal  from  the  University. 


University  of  Illinois  Library 


iPR  1 0 1965 

M.flp  f ? < 


FEB2  11!?8 


L161— 0-1096 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
: in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


% 


https://archive.org/details/attitudeofjeromeOOpeas 


Extracted  from  Transactions  of  the  A7fterican  Philological 
Association,  Vol.  l,  1919. 


IX.  — The  Attitude  of  Jerome  towards  Pagan  Literature 


By  Professor  ARTHUR  STANLEY  PEASE 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


The  student  of  classical  literature  can  hardly  be  indifferent 
to  the  question  how  his  favorite  authors  have  been  in  various 
ages  regarded.  While  at  present  the  attitude  of  individuals 
towards  the  classics  may,  in  view  of  the  wide  distribution  of 
printed  texts,  be  a matter  of  less  concern,  it  is  obvious  that, 
when  manuscripts  were  few,  not  merely  the  accurate  text  tra- 
dition of  an  author  but  even  the  bare  preservation  of  his  works 
must  often  have  depended  upon  the  esteem  in  which  they 
were  held  by  the  few  persons  who  possessed  them.  Again,  the 
pagan  literature  depended -for  its  existence  upon  the  suffer- 
ance of  Christian  transmitters,  and  it  was  thus  a matter  of  no 
little  moment  whether  their  disposition  towards  it  was  appre- 
hensive, contemptuous,  indifferent,  or  friendly.  It  seems, 
therefore,  worth  while  to  reexamine  ^ the  attitude  in  this  re- 
gard of  St.  Jerome,  a Christian  of  distinction  and  influence  in 
a period  of  transition,  during  which  the  pagan  culture  was 
yielding  to  the  Christian  — himself  a man  thoroughly  trained 
in  the  secular  education  and  yet  consistently  devoted  to  the 
new  faith.  This  combination  will  assure  us  that  his  feelings 
would  not  have  been  those  of  a narrow  and  unsympathetic 
bigot,^  nor  yet  of  a superficial  rather  than  a sincere 
Christian. 

Jerome’s  life  extended  from  between  340  and  350^  to  420, 
and  included  the  reign  of  Julian  ^ and  the  pagan  revivals  of  the 

1 Cf.  Zockler,  Hieronymus  (1865),  esp.  pp.  325  ff . ; Liibeck,  Hieronymus 
quos  noverit  scriptores  et  ex  quibus  hauserit  (1872)  — a useful  but  very  incom- 
plete work  (cf.  Grutzmacher,  Hieronymus,  i [1901],  114,  n.  6;  Traube,  Vorle- 
sungen  und  Ahhandlungen,  ii  [1911],  66,  n.  2) ; Comparetti,  Virgilio  net  medio 
evo,  i^,  (18^6),  109-111;  Griitzmacher,  i,  113  ff. 

2 Like  Tertullian;  cf.  Farrar,  Lives  of  the  Fathers,  1 (1889),  120. 

® On  the  date  of  his  birth  see  Grutzmacher,  i,  45-48. 

^ Cf.  in  Abac,  ii,  p.  660. 


VoL  1] 


Jerome  and  Pagan  Literature 


151 


fourth  century,^  as  well  as  the  period  of  such  severe  blows 
against  paganism  as  the  destruction  of  the  temple  of  Sarapis 
at  Alexandria  and  the  prohibition  of  pagan  worship  in  392.^ 
But  it  is  significant  that  Jerome  wrote  no  works  directed  spe- 
cifically against  the  old  faith,  and  seldom  mentions  contem- 
porary pagan  opponents  of  Christianity^  The  absence  of 
vigorous  pagan  opposition  doubtless  made  it  easier  to  consider 
the  classical  literature  on  its  own  intrinsic  merits,  rather  than 
as  the  vehicle  of  religious  propaganda. 

It  is  now  my  intention  to  trace  briefly  some  of  the  influences 
which  determined  Jerome’s  attitude  towards  the  classics. 
And  first,  both  in  chronology  and  importance,  was  his  educa- 
tion, a subject  so  fully  treated  by  Griitzmacher  ^ in  his  biog- 
raphy that  I need  merely  summarize  his  results.  Becoming 
in  354  a pupil  of  Donatus,^  he  studied  the  classical  writers, 
including  Plautus  and  Terence,  Sallust,  Lucretius,  Horace, 
Virgil,  Persius,  and  Lucan,  with  commentaries  upon  them 
by  Donatus  and  others,^®  as  well  as  many  points  on  figures  of 
speech  and  grammatical  matters.^^  In  addition  he  acquired 

® References  to  Q.  Aurelius  Symmachus  are  lacking  in  Jerome  (Griitzmacher, 

1,  276),  but  to  Vettius  Agorius  Praetextatus  he  refers  in  Ep.  23,  2,  i ; cf.  Ep. 
39j  3>  7 j contra  Ioann.  Ilieros.  8. 

Cf.  Ep.  107,  2,  3;  in  Is.  VII,  p.  279;  Tract,  de  Ps.  96  {Anecd.  Marcd.  iii, 

2,  142);  also  Ep.  92,  3,  2 (translated  by  Jerome).  On  the  neglect  of  pagan 
worship  cf.  Ep.  107,  1-2,  written  in  401  (Griitzmacher,  i,  100)  or  399-400 
(Pronberger,  Beitrdge  ziir  Chron.  der  Briefe  des  hi.  Ilier.  [1913],  68-69).  Cf. 
adv.  lovin.  ii,  38. 

' Cf.  Griitzmacher,  i,  275  II.  ® i,  113  ff. 

9 Chron.  ann.  Abr.  2370;  in  Eccl.  p.  390;  adv.  Rufin.  i,  16. 

Adv.  Rufin.  i,  16  : cf.  Griitzmacher,  i,  114,  n.  6.  These  authors,  at  least, 
it  seems  fair  to  select  from  those  quoted  by  him  as  probably  having  been  studied 
in  his  school  days  (Liibeck,  5,  to  the  contrary).  To  the  list  should  be  added 
some  sententiae  of  Publilius  Syrus — both  genuine  and  spurious;  cf.  Wolfflin, 
Puhlilii  Syri  sententiae  (1869),  14-15;  Liibeck,  115;  Ep.  107,  8,  i.  To  the 
few  cases  from  Lucretius  cited  by  Liibeck,  116-117,  should  be  added  that 
noted  by  Hilberg  in  Ep.  77,  ii,  2;  cf.  Griitzmacher,  i,  114,  n.  6. 

Griitzmacher,  114,  and  nn.  3-4 ; Liibeck,  175,  n.  3.  On  the  borrowings  from 
Donatus  to  be  detected  in  Jerome  see  Griitzmacher,  i,  115,  n.  2,  and  especially 
Lammert,  “ De  Hier.  Donati  discipulo  ” (1912),  in  the  Comment,  philol.  lenenses, 
rx,  2.  In  spite  of  his  respect  for  Donatus  Jerome  could  view  •grammatici 
and  their  interests  with  a little  humor,  as  maybe  seen  from  in  lonam,  p.  426. 


152 


Arthur  Stanley  Pease 


[1919 


a sense  for  literary  style,  which  made  him  extremely  sensitive 
to  works  of  unrhetorical  composition,  and  in  his  own  writings, 
though  by  no  means  approaching  the  perfection  of  his  classical 
models,  he  became  a follower  of  Ciceronian  traditions,  and 
one  of  the  better  stylists  of  the  Latin  fathersd^  His  study 
of  rhetoric,  including  the  declaiming  of  controversiae}^  left 
traces  upon  him  which  he  later  tried  in  vain  to  eradicated^ 
In  his  philosophical  studies  he  appears  to  have  come  into  little 
first-hand  contact  with  the  great  Greek  philosophers,  for  though 
he  mentions  Plato,  Aristotle,  Theophrastus,  Carneades,  and 
others,^^'  it  is  clear  that  nearly  all  quotations  from  them  are 
through  the  medium  of  Cicero,  Seneca,  or  other  Latin  writers d® 
Indeed  it  appears  that  he  did  not  learn  Greek  at  all  until  he 
went  to  Antioch  in  373d^ 

That  the  early  rhetorical  interests  of  Jerome  should  have 
influenced  his  later  thought  is  not  surprising.  Despite  asper- 
sions upon  the  childish  vanity  and  insincerity  of  rhetorical 
and  philosophical  studies  as  compared  with  the  simple  truth 

^2  Grutzmacher,  i,  117  classes  him  second  only  to  Lactantius.  Cf.  Zockler, 
323  : ‘‘So  hat  . . . erst  Hieronymus  die  lateinische  Sprache  christlich  und  die 
christhche  Theologie  lateinisch  gemacht/’  and  he  quotes  Ozanam  {Hist,  de  la 
civil,  chret.  au  siecle,  ii,  100)  as  calling  Jerome  “le  maitre  de  la  prose  chretienne 
pour  tous  les  siecles  suivants.”  Cf.  Erasmus  as  quoted  by  Zockler,  340,  n.  i. 
On  the  stylistic,  peculiarities  of  Jerome  cf.  Goelzer,  Etude  lexicogr.  et  gram,  de 
la  latinite  de  S.  Jerdme  (1884),  and  the  works  of  Paucker  cited  by  him,  op.  cit. 
VII,  n.  I,  Schanz,  Gesch.  rdm.  Lit.  iv,  (1914),  494-495;  Pease  in /owm. 
Bibl.  Lit.  XXVI  (1907),  107  ff. 

^^Adv.  Rufin.  I,  30;  ill  Galat.  ii,  2,  p.  408. 

Grutzmacher,  i,  1 21-122;  adv.  Rufin.  1,  30. 

^^Liibeck,  57  ff.;  Grutzmacher,  i,  122-123. 

Adv.  Rufin.  HI,  39,  p.  565;  cf.  Liibeck,  58,  n.  i.  Also  Praef.  in  lih.  lob 
(quoted  in  adv.  Rufin.  ii,  29);  cf.  Rufin.  Apol.  ii,  29.  Porphyry,  however, 
Jerome  cites  at  first  hand  (cf.  Lubeck,  64-86 ; also  the  reproaches  of  Rufinus, 
Apol.  II,  9,  p.  362;  II,  10  bis,  p.  365;  II,  29;  II,  42),  and  other  lesser  philoso- 
phers, e.g.  Alexander  of  Aphrodisias  (Lubeck,  96,  n.  i ; Grutzmacher,  i,  124,  n.  3). 

Rufin.  Apol.  II,  9,  p.  362;  Hier.  adv.  Rufin.  i,  30.  Cf.  Grutzmacher, 

I,  151,  and  n.  i;  adv.  Rufin.  ii,  22;  iii,  6.  On  the  dislike  of  Augustine  and 
Ausoniusfor  Greek  see  Lockwood  in  T.A.P.A.  xlix  (1918),  120. 

Cf.  the  preface  to  his  translation  of  Origen’s  homilies  on  Jeremiah  (pp. 
741-742) ; also  Ep.  52,  4,  i ; 66,  9,  i ; 120,  praef.  4;  adv.  Helvid.  2 ; in  Ezech. 
IX,  p.  360;  contra  Lucif.  14. 


54919 


VoL  1] 


Jerome  and  Pagan  Literature 


153 


of  the  Scriptures/^  and  occasional  assertions  of  revolt  from 
the  established  rules  of  the  rhetoricians/®  he  remained  very 
sensitive  to  criticisms  against  his  style,  and  apologized  for 
its  defects  on  the  grounds  of  absence  from  Latin  associations,^^ 
the  corrupting  influence  of  his  Hebrew  studies,^^  hasty  com- 
position, and  frequent  dictation.^^  Again,  like  the  Italian 
humanists,  with  their  fondness  for  classical  models  and  an- 
tipathy to  the  barbarous  diction  of  the  theologians,^^  Jerome’s 
tastes  were  offended  by  the  stylistic  rudeness  of  the  early 
Christian  writings.  He  tells  of  his  original  dislike  for  the 
Hebrew  language  and  its  sounds  — the  stridor  lectionis  He- 
braicae,  — and  how,  after  reading  Quintilian  and  Cicero, 
he  passed  to  the  study  of  the  book  of  Daniel  in  the  original, 
with  which  he  was  so  much  disgusted  that  had  it  not  been  for 
the  encouragement  of  his  teacher  he  would  have  abandoned 
the  study  altogether.^®  He  was  also  acutely  aware  of  the  harsh- 

Contrasts  of  worldly  wisdom  and  Christian  simplicity  are  frequent;  e.g.^ 
Ep.  48,  4,  3;  57,  12,  4;  133,  12;  inis,  vii,  p.  311;  Galat.  iii,  pp.  485-486; 
487-488;  Tract,  de  Ps.  132  {Anecd.  Mared.  iii,  2,  245);  Homil.  in  Ioann,  i 
{Anecd.  Mared.  iii,  2,  388).  Accordingly,  as  we  learn  in  Tract,  de  Ps.  77  {Anecd. 
Mared.  iii,  2,  63),  ecclesiastici  . . . rustici  sunt  et  simplices;  omnes  vero 
haeretici  Aristotelici  et  Platonici  sunt;  cf.  Tract,  de  Ps.  83  {Anecd.  Mared. 
Ill,  2,  84).  For  Augustine’s  condemnation  of  rhetoric  see  Farrar,  ii,  304-305. 
But  the  other  side  of  the  story  is  seen  in  Comm,  in  Galat.  iii,  pp.  487-488; 
with  which  cf.  Tract,  de  Ps.  86  {Anecd.  Mared.  iii,  2,  104).  These  passages 
suggest  I Cor.  i,  23-28.  Jerome’s  admiration  for  Demosthenes  and  Cicero 
was  great,  and  their  names  often  appear  as  types  of  oratory ; e.g.,  Ep.  26,  14,  i ; 
29,  1,3;  57,  13,  2;  84,  6,  i;  85,  I,  i;  99,  2,  i ; 125,  12;  126,  2;  130,6;  147,  5; 
contra  Ioann.  Ilieros.  4 and  12;  adv.  Pelag.  iii,  16;  de  Vir.  III.  prol. ; in  Is. 
VIII,  pp.  327-328;  in  lonani,  p.  419;  in  Naum,  pp.  538-539;  in  Galat.  iii, 
pp.  485-486;  Praef.  in  lib.  Is.;  Praef.  in  lib.  Dan. 

20  Cf.  Ep.  60,  8,  I.  21  Cf  50,  I,  2 ; 50,  2,  3 ; 85,  i,  i. 

22  Cf.  in  Galat.  iii,  pp.  485-486. 

22  Cf.  117,  12 ; 118,  i;  119,1;  128,5;  129,8;  75.  (in  the  different 

prologues);  in  Ezech.  xiv,  pp.  239-240;  viii,  283-284;  in  Mich.  prol.  pp.  431- 
432;  in  Agg.  p.  774;  inZach.  prol.  pp.  777-778;  ii,  p.  826;  in  Matt.  prol.  pp. 
7-8.  For  the  difficulties  of  dictation  cf.  in  Galat.  prol.  pp.  369-370;  iii,  pp. 
485-486;  in  Ahd.  p.  386. 

2^  Cf.  Moore,  Hist,  of  Relig.  ii  (1919),  293. 

25  In  Galat.  iii,  pp.  485-486;  cf.  Ep.  26,  14,  i ; 125,  12. 

26  Cf.  Praef.  in  lib.  Dan.  (pp.  1291-1292  Migne). 


154 


Arthur  Stanley  Pease 


[1919 

ness  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  versions  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  explained  this  as  due  to  their  being  translations,^^  de- 
claring that  not  even  Homer  or  the  authors  translated  by 
Cicero  sound  well  4n  Latin,  and  that  Cicero  himself,  in  a 
single  work  based  on  Greek  sources,  had  coined  more  Latin 
terms  than  are  found  in  all  the  Latin  Scriptures.^® 

We  must  now  discuss  Jerome’s  vision,  perhaps  the  best 
known  incident  in  his  life.  In  his  twenty-second  letter,  written 
in  384  to  the  nun  Eustochium  and  discussing  the  preserva- 
tion of  virginity,  he  warns  against  the  enticements  of  secular 
interests  and  exclaims:  “What  agreement  have  Christ  and 
Belial?  What  has  Horace  in  common  with  the  Psalter? 
Virgil  with  the  Gospels?  Cicero  with  the  Apostle?”  And 
he  continues  by  relating  his  own  experience  Ten  or  eleven 
years  before,^^  when  on  his  way  to  the  East,  he  could  not  bear 
to  leave  behind  the  library  he  had  collected.^^  And  so,  after 
Lenten  fasts  and  vigils,  after  reading  Cicero  and  Plautus,  he 
was  seized  by  a fever  and  rapt  in  the  spirit  before  the  tribunal 
of  the  Judge ; where  there  was  such  a flood  of  light,  and  such 
resplendence  from  the  glory  of  the  angel  spectators,  that, 

In  Is.  praef.  pp.  5-6.  28  Qhron.  praef. ; Ep.  29,  i,  3. 

2®  Chron.^  1.  c.;  Praef.  in  Pentateuch. 

In  Galat.  i,  p.  387. 

Griitzmacher,  i,  58 ; Pronberger,  op.  cit.  25-26. 

32  Ep.  22,  29,  7;  cf.  Tert.  de  Praescr.  adv.  Haeret.  7. 

33  Ep.  22,  30,  1-6;  repeated  by  Rufin.  Apol.  ii,  6. 

34  Annas  plurimos;  but  the  event  fell  in  373  or  shortly  thereafter ; cf.  Griitz- 
macher,  i,  61. 

33  On  his  library  see  Ep.  5,  2,  2-4.  It  apparently  included  both  ecclesiastical 
and  secular  books  (cf.  Griitzmacher,  i,  128-129),  it  is  of  interest  to  note 
that  Jerome,  with  a scholar’s  natural  instincts,  later  encouraged  the  writing  of 
books,  for  he  writes  to  a monk  {Ep.  125,  ii ; dating,  according  to  Griitzmacher, 
1, 88,  after  410;  according  to  Pronberger,  op.  cit.  77-78,  about  409) : Texanturet 
lina  capiendis  piscibus,  scribantur  libri,  ut  et  manus  operetur  cibum  et  animus 
lectione  saturetur.  This  advice,  anticipating  by  more  than  a century  a like 
provision  in  the  Rule  of  St.  Benedict,  is  probably  the  first  instance  of  encourage- 
ment to  monks  to  copy  books;  cf.  Wattenbach,  Das  Schriftwesen  im  Mittel- 
alter^  (1896),  428;  Norden  in  Die  Kultur  der  Gegenwart,  i,  8 2 (1907),  409. 
For  the  carrying  out  of  Jerome’s  principles  by  monks  see  Rufinus,  Apol.  ii, 
8 bis,  p.  363. 


Vol.  1] 


Jerome  and  Pagan  Literature 


155 


prostrate  on  the  earth,  he  dared  not  uplift  his  eyes.  Asked 
about  his  state,  he  answered  that  he  was  a Christian.  “Thou 
liest,”  answered  the  Judge;  “thou  art  a Ciceronian,  not  a 
Christian;  for  where  thy  treasure  is,  there  is  thy  heart.” 
After  flogging  and  torture  Jerome  took  solemn  oaths  never  to 
possess  or  read  secular  manuscripts,  and  thereupon,  with 
shoulders  dark  with  weals,  returned  to  consciousness.  Thence- 
forth he  read  divine  books  more  zealously  than  previously  he 
had  read  secular  writings. 

In  regard  to  this  vision  two  points  must  be  noted.  First, 
it  was  but  a dream,  though  vivid  and  highly  colored,  and  no 
doubt  with  a great  impression,  as  such  nightmares  often  have, 
upon  a mind  overwrought  by  asceticism.^^  And  secondly, 
Jerome  tells  it  for  a definite  moralizing  purpose,  in  a very  rhe- 
torical fashion.^"^  Indeed,  the  dream  might  be  found,  could 
one  study  its  antecedents,  to  be  based  upon  rhetorical  models. 
At  any  rate  it  is  significant  that  later  Christians  were  by  dreams 
somewhat  similarly  diverted  from  secular  reading.^^  Let  us 
now  observe  how  Jerome’s  vision  was  regarded.  A few  years 
after  describing  it  he  thus  addresses  Eustochium  and  Paula  : 
“You  yourselves  know  that  it  is  more  than  fifteen  years  since 
Tully  or  Maro  or  any  of  the  secular  authors  has  been  taken 
into  my  hands,  and  if  by  chance  any  influence  from  them 
creeps  into  my  citations,  such  cases  are  but  misty  recollections. 

In  Ep.  22,  7,  1-2  we  have  proof  of  the  unwholesome  condition  into  which 
Jerome’s  imagination  had  been  brought  as  a result  of  prolonged  fastings. 

Schone,  Die  W eltchronik  des  Eusebius  (1900),  240,  calls  the  vision  “eines 
der  argerlichsten  Musterstiicke  verlogener  Rhetorik,  miihsam  ausgesonnener 
Begeisterung  und  unechter  Frommigkeit.”  But,  as  Griitzmacher  (i,  153) 
says,  a real  experience  undoubtedly  underlies  the  account. 

Cf.  Sandys,  Hist,  of  Class.  Scholarship,  (1906),  618;  also  Traube,  ii 
(1911),  66  ; Fin  ahnlicher  Art  durch  eine  Vision  — auch  das  ist  zum  rhetorischen 
Kunstgriff  geworden  — wird  unzahlige  Male  nach  Hieronymus  die  Stellung 
des  Christentums  zur  BeschMtigung  mit  den  Klassikern  fixiert,  der  Unwert 
dieser  Beschaftigung  eingescharft” ; and  ih.  n.  4. 

Galat.  Ill,  pp.  485-486.  For  the  date  see  Griitzmacher  (i,  60-62), 
who  puts  it  in  386-387.  This  conflicts,  however,  as  Griitzmacher  recognizes, 
with  the  “fifteen  years”  in  the  present  passage,  for  373-1-15=388.  Perhaps 
plus  quam  quindecim  anni  is  not  exact. 


Arthur  Stanley  Pease 


[1919 


156 

as  it  were  of  a dream  long  past.”  Fifteen  years  or  more 
later  he  feels  it  necessary  to  defend  himself  against  charges 
of  Rufinus  that  he  had  had  a monk  at  Bethlehem  copy  dialogues 
of  Cicero,  had  taught  the  classics  to  young  pupils,  and  had 
proved  false  to  the  promises  made  in  his  vision. His  de- 
fence is  based  upon  several  grounds : that  Rufinus  himself 
read  Cicero ; that  the  promise  was  made  in  a dream,^^  and 
that  dreams  are  notoriously  unreliable ; also  that  Rufinus 
has  probably  himself  not  kept  absolutely  his  baptismal  and 
monastic  vows.^^  This  defence  is  long  and  sophistical,^^  and 
one  feels  that  Jerome  “doth  protest  too  much,”  for  the  habits 
of  Rufinus  are  irrelevant,  since  he  had  had  no  such  vision,  and 
the  argument  that  dreams  are  not  binding,  though  sound,^® 
is  here  weakened  by  being  coupled  with  that  drawn  from  the 
lapses  of  Christians  from  other  obligations. 

So  far  as  I am  aware  no  definite  attempt  has  been  made  to 
discover  how  far  the  dream  affected  Jerome’s  attitude  toward 
literature.  It  has  been  observed  that  he  asks  Paul  of  Con- 
cordia for  a copy  of  Aurelius  Victor,  and  that  many  classical 
quotations  — in  fact  the  bulk  of  those  which  he  makes  — 
fall  in  works  subsequent  to  the  vision. I have  tried  the  ex- 
periment of  dividing  the  letters  into  groups,  following  the 

Cf.  Ep.  70,  3,  2. 

Griitzmacher,  i,  68,  dates  the  book  against  Rufinus  in  402. 

^ Adv.  Rufin.  I,  30-31. 

Rufin.  Apol.  II,  7-8,  pp.  359-360 ; ii,  8 bis,  p.  363. 

^ Adv.  Rufin.  1,  2)0.  ^i.  Ih. 

48  Cf.  Zockler,  325,  n.  i. 

48  Farrar,  ii,  185,  n.  3,  considers  his  account  in  this  passage  very  unlike 
what  he  had  previously  written  to  Eustochium  (cf.  Ep.  22,  30,  6).  But  Farrar 
underestimates  the  rhetorical  character  of  the  twenty-second  letter,  and  hence 
is  over-concerned  with  Jerome’s  failure  to  live  in  accordance  with  it.  Norden, 
op.  cit.  408,  thinks  that  Jerome’s  compromise  did  more  honor  to  his  ‘^Wis- 
sensdrang  und  Formensinn^'  than  to  his  ‘‘Wahrhaftigkeit  und  Gewissenstreue.” 

88  Zockler,  48,  n.  2 ; Farrar,  ii,  185.  The  passage  is  Ep.  10,  3,  2. 

84  This  had  been  noted  by  Magnus,  to  whom,  in  Ep.  70  (written  between 
399  and  403,  according  to  Griitzmacher,  i,  100;  or  in  398,  according  to  Pron- 
berger,  op.  cit.  56)  he  explains  the  reason  for  his  many  classical  quotations. 
He  appears  to  have  suspected  that  Magnus  had  been  instigated  by  Rufinus  to 
make  this  inquiry ; cf.  Ep.  70,  6,  2,  and  Pronberger,  l.c. 


VoL  1] 


Jerome  and  Pagan  Literature 


157 


chronological  arrangement  of  Pronberger,^^  making  the  first 
group  include  letters  1-4,  dating  from  370  to  374,  and  closing 
at  about  the  probable  date  of  the  vision,  and  the  second  group 
letters  5-46,  dating  from  375  to  386  (the  approximate  date  of 
the  Commentary  on  Galatians)  The  first  group  covers,  in 
Hilberg’s  edition,  20  pages;  the  second,  324.  In  the  first 
group  Hilberg  indicates  at  12  places  reminiscences  of  secular 
writers,  or  an  average  of  once  in  1.6  pages;  in  the  second, 
following  the  vision,  at  42  places,  or  once  in  7.7  pages.  But 
since  the  first  group  is  so  small  as  to  vitiate  comparisons,  I 
have  made  a third,  immediately  following  and  equal  in  length 
to  the  second,  that  is,  of  324  pages,  containing  118  allusions 
or  one  in  2.7  pages.  A subsequent  group  of  324  pages  con- 
tains 63  cases,  or  one  in  5.1  pages,  while  the  remaining  231 
pages  of  Hilberg’s  second  volume  show  49  cases,  or  one  in 
4.7  pages.  These  figures  are  subject  to  modifications  here 
and  there, and  the  groups  are  of  course  somewhat  arbitrary. 
Yet  it  is  of  interest  to  observe  the  diminished  frequency  of 
citation  immediately  following  the  vision,  and  again,  the  in- 
crease subsequent  to  the  period  of  the  Commentary  on  Gala- 
tians. Could  we  be  more  precise  as  to  the  dates  of  letters  we 
might  make  these  groups  correspond  more  exactly  to  differing 
periods  in  his  attitude.^”^ 

Cf.  op.  cit.  pp.  95-96 ; the  results  according  to  Griitzmacher’s  table  (i, 
99-100)  differ  in  an  almost  negligible  degree.  Josephus  I exclude  from  the  list 
of  secular  authors  because  of  his  indispensability  for  ecclesiastical  scholars. 

Either  before  or  after  Ep.  46  Griitzmacher  and  Pronberger  indicate  a 
break  of  about  seven  years  in  the  correspondence. 

Running  into  Hilberg’s  second  volume. 

55  Through  Ep.  120  (408-409  a.d.). 

55  Due  to  differences  in  dating  the  letters,  in  deciding  what  constitutes  a 
classical  reminiscence,  and  to  unlikeness  in  the  contents  of  the  letters. 

5^  I have  selected  for  comparison  the  letters  rather  than  other  works  falling 
in  these  years,  partly  because  the  allusions  in  them  have  been  more  completely 
noted  (though  even  to  Hilberg’s  gatherings  additions  can  be  made),  and  partly 
because  they  are  less  specialized  in  contents  and  more  truly  representative  than 
either  commentaries  or  controversial  works.  Griitzmacher  (i,  133)  thinks 
that  about  the  year  399  a change  in  Jerome’s  attitude  set  in,  basing  his  belief 
on  Ep.  70,  but  I doubt  if  the  change  was  a sudden  one,  and  the  reason  for  the 


Arthur  Stanley  Peo.se 


[1919 


158 

Jerome,  as  I have  said,  explained  to  his  lady  friends  that 
what  classical  quotations  occurred  in  his  works  were  due  to 
reminiscence,  not  to  renewed  consultation  of  the  originals, 
and  this  statement  Liibeck  accepts,  save  as  applied  to  the 
Greek  historians,  a necessary  tool  for  Biblical  studies.  That 
the  authors  of  his  youthful  training  were  those  most  frequently 
quoted  — especially  Cicero,  Horace,  and  Virgil  — need 
occasion  little  surprise,  and  that  many  passages,  particularly 
of  the  poets,  clung  to  his  memory  was  but  natural,  and  is  in- 
dicated by  the  number  of  times  some  particular  lines  are  re- 
peated in  his  works.®®  Frequently  a quotation  is  inexact  in 
such  a way  as  to  suggest  that  Jerome  was  trusting  to  his 
memory.®^  That  he  seldom  cites  exact  references  is  hardly 
significant,  for,  despite  his  scholarly  interests,  he  is  commonly 
negligent  about  this  even  in  the  case  of  works  of  Christian 
scholarship,®^  where  a reader  might  desire  to  verify  references, 
while  Biblical  texts  are  constantly  quoted,  even  as  proof-pas- 
sages, without  mention  of  their  exact  source.  Important  in 

decisive  tone  of  Ep.  70  is  that  Jerome’s  previous  practice  had  been  then  called 
in  question. 

P.  9.  Traube,  ii,  66,  characterizes  this  view  of  Liibeck  as  ganz  kindisch.  ” 
The  truth  probably  lies  between  these  extremes.  Rufinus  {Apol.  ii,  8,  p.  361) 
is  contemptuous  of  Jerome’s  defence  of  himself  on  the  ground  of  reminiscence. 
Noteworthy  exceptions  to  Liibeck’s  view  as  stated  are  the  lengthy  quotation 
in  Ep.  57,  5,  2-4  from  Cic.  Opt.  Gen.  13-14  (cf.  the  reproaches  of  Rufinus  in 
Apol.  II,  8,  p.  360)  and  the  rather  long  quoted  passages  in  adv.  Rufin.  iii,  39. 
Cf.  also  n.  65  infra. 

Cf.  Liibeck,  5 ; Zockler,  326. 

Cf.  in  Liibeck’s  work  such  lines  as  Virg.  Aen.  iv,  298;  vi,  625  ff.,  724  ff., 
733  ff- 

Many  cases  are  noted  by  Liibeck ; e.g.,  misquotation  of  Cicero  {in  Is.  xii, 
p.  504) ; of  Aen.  i,  743  (adv.  Rufin.  iii,  28) ; of  Aen.  ii,  329  (Praef.  in  Esdram, 
p.  1525) ; of  Aen.  rv,  379  (in  Ezech.  iii,  p.  99) ; of  Aen.  v,  89  (in  Ezech.  i,  p. 
22) ; reversal  of  the  order  of  lines  of  Hor.  Epist.  i,  i,  99-100  (in  Eccl.  p.  409). 
Augustine,  who  also  does  not  always  quote  correctly  (e.g.,  de  Doctr.  Christ. 
II,  31),  sometimes  recognizes  his  fallibility  by  such  phrases  as  si  bene  recolo 
(e.g.,  de  Doctr.  Christ,  iii,  ii).  In  some  instances  Jerome  adapts  the  quota- 
tion to  fit  its  new  context ; in  others  he  doubtless  bases  his  readings  on  different 
text  traditions  from  those  commonly  employed  to-day. 

Of  course  many  exceptions  may  be  found;  e.g.,  in  Dan.  prol.  pp. 
617  ff. 


Vol.  1] 


Jerome  and  Pagan  Literature 


159 


this  connection  are  Jerome’s  dictated  works, which  show  no 
marked  reduction  in  the  frequency  of  classical  allusions.®^ 
How  largely  these  reminiscences  go  back  to  his  boyhood  and 
to  what  extent  they  were  refreshed  by  renewed  reading  we 
shall  never  know. 

In  the  light,  then,  of  Jerome’s  statements  and  practice  it 
is  likely  that  the  vision  had  some  effect  for  fifteen  years  or 
so,  but  that  after  that  he  regarded  it  as  in  no  way  binding. 
One  is  tempted  to  suggest  that  the  interruption  in  his  ascetic 
life  in  the  Orient  caused  by  his  stay  in  Rome  in  382-385  might 
have  been  responsible  for  this  backsliding,  but  his  references 
in  the  Commentary  on  Galatians  to  the  fifteen  years  during 
which  he  had  not  read  pagan  authors  do  not  favor  this  theory. 
More  likely  is  it  that  the  change  was  gradual  and  that  its  full 
effects  were  not  felt  till  after  he  was  settled  in  386  for  his  long 
stay  at  Bethlehem.  Again,  the  unnatural  ascetic  exaltation 
in  which  he  had  been  at  the  time  of  the  dream,  as  a young 
man  of  twenty-five  or  thirty,  had  yielded  to  the  maturer  judg- 
ment of  age,®®  which  saw  matters  in  truer  proportions. 

All  his  life,  however,  was  passed  with  books,  and  they  allowed 
little  room  for  interest  in  contemporaneous  events.  Civil 
wars,®^  barbarian  invasions  in  the  East  ®®  and  the  West,®®  and 
the  capture  of  Rome  by  Alaric  are,  indeed,  mentioned,  and 

Cf.  n.  23  supra. 

E.g.,  Ep.  117  and  118  (both  dictated)  contain,  in  23  pages,  9 allusions,  or 
one  in  2.5  pages.  Letters  119  and  129  (also  dictated),  despite  unfavorable 
subject-matter,  are  not  free  from  allusions. 

On  Jerome’s  habits  of  reading  compare  the  outside  testimony  of  Sulpicius 
Severus,  Dial,  i,  9,  5.  The  extent  to  which  works  studied  in  youth  might 
affect  one’s  later  thought  is  recognized  by  Augustine,  C.  Z).  i,  3 ; cf.  Cassian, 
Collat.  14,  12  ; and  n.  58  supra. 

®®  Cf.  Farrar,  ii,  185.  But  see  Mollweide  in  Wien.  Stud,  xxxin  (1912),  280- 
283.  Perhaps  his  temporary  desertion  of  classicism  may  have  had  the  result, 
as  Zbckler,  324,  suggests,  of  making  his  later  style  less  imitative. 

Cf.  Ep.  60,  15,  I ff. ; 60,  17,  I ; 77,  8,  4. 

Cf.  Chron.  praef. ; Ep.  60,  16,  1-5;  66,  14,  1-2;  77,  8,  1-4;  114,  1-2; 
118,  2,  2;  126,  2;  in  Ezech.  viii,  pp.  283-284. 

Ep.  123,  16. 

Ep.  123,  17;  127,  12-13;  128,  5;  130,  4-7  (where  Jerome’s  excitement 


i6o 


Arthur  Stanley  Pease 


[1919 


to  defects  in  the  social  fabric  of  his  time  he  often  alludes/^  but 
economic,  military,  and  political  questions  interested  him  but 
little  The  slight  degree  of  his  feeling  for  the  historic  tradi- 
tion of  the  Roman  state  is  due  to  his  non-Roman  birth,  his 
long  residence  in  the  Orient, and  a constant  sense  of  the  con- 
trast between  worldly  and  spiritual  glory. 

A second  factor  affecting  Jerome’s  attitude  towards  the 
classics  is,  not  unnaturally,  the  mental  outlook  of  those  for 
whom  he  wrote. In  his  homilies  and  tractates  for  the  ‘‘sim- 
pler brethren”  of  the  monastery  at  Bethlehem,  classical  refer- 
ences are  naturally  infrequent."^  On  the  contrary,  in  writing 
to  a profligate  deacon, he  scathingly  assumes  that,  except 
for  mental  dulness,  the  man  would  be  only  too  familiar  with 
comedians,  lyric  writers,  and  mimes.  But  in  addressing  cul- 
tivated readers  the  pearls  of  classical  allusion  are  more  lavishly 
cast.  In  letters  to  Pope  Damasus,  himself  an  imitator  of 
Virgil, he  quotes  from  the  Aeneid  to  illustrate  a principle  of 
scansion, and  includes  other  reminiscences  of  Augustan  poets. 

leads  him  into  frequent  classical  reminiscence) ; in  Ep.  142,  i Rome  and  Alaric 
are  perhaps  to  be  understood  under  the  names  of  Jerusalem  and  Nebuchadnez- 
zar. 

Especially  in  hortatory  letters.  Sometimes  his  work  approaches  the  field 
of  Juvenalian  satire ; cf.  Weston,  Latin  Satiric  Writing  Subsequent  to  Juvenal 
(1915),  82-100;  also  n.  117  infra. 

Mention  of  emperors  and  civil  officials  is  rare. 

There  his  outlook  was  largely  Greek;  cf.  Ep.  50,  2,  3. 

He  numbered,  however,  among  his  friends  several  of  aristocratic  lineage ; 
e.g.,  Furia  {Ep.  54,  i,  2 ; 54,  6,  3),  Paula  {Ep.  108,  i,  i ; 108,  3,  i ; 108,  33,  2), 
Marcella  {Ep.  127,  i).  But  some  of  these  references  to  ancestry  would  very 
likely  not  have  been  made  had  it  not  been  for  rhetorical  usage;  cf.  Ep.  130,  3. 

E.g.  cf.  Ep.  49,  I. 

75  Even  there  he  twice  quotes  Persius,  i,  i {Anecd.  Mared.  iii,  2,  130;  iii,  3, 
83).  Plato  and  Aristotle  are  also  several  times  vaguely  disparaged,  indicating 
that  these  were  names  of  which  his  fellow-monks  had  heard;  cf.  adv.  Pelag. 
I,  19. 

77  Ep.  147,  3. 

75  Cf.  Schanz,  Gesch.  rom.  Lit.  rv,  (1914),  215  and  217. 

Ep.  20,  5,  2.  But  Llibeck,  176,  n.  i,  points  out  that  Jerome  is  perhaps 
here  following  Victorinus. 

55  With  Ep.  21,  2,  5 cf.  Virg.  Ed.  4,  61 ; with  Ep.  21,  42  perhaps  cf.  Hor. 
Epist.  II,  I,  123. 


Vol.  1] 


Jerome  and  Pagan  Literature 


i6i 


Addressing  Pammachius  he  uses  many  classical  allusions  and 
compares  Pammachius  to  Aeneas, while  in  the  epitaphia  on 
distinguished  Roman  ladies,*^  where  the  rhetorical  element  is 
prominent,  such  allusions  are  frequent.^"  In  a letter  to  The- 
ophilus,  bishop  of  Alexandria, Jerome  commends  him  for  not 
having,  in  a paschal  letter,  inserted  phrases  from  secular  writers, 
and  elsewhere  he  considers  it  more  proper  to  cite  Christian 
than  pagan  views. Yet  he  was,  in  general,  greatly  influenced 
by  the  character,  and  still  more  by  the  culture,  of  those  to 
whom  he  wrote,  and  to  the  sophisticated  he  allowed  himself 
a freedom  from  which  he  abstained  when  addressing  the  more 
easily  scandalized  simplicity  of  the  monks  at  Bethlehem.®® 
But  apart  from  morals  or  propriety,  there  was  another  de- 
termining factor,  namely,  the  theological  one.  Pagan  litera- 
ture (especially  the  epics)  was  permeated  by  references  to 
pagan  gods,  and  to  such  unbecoming  ethical  examples  he  was, 
like  Plato,  opposed,®®  just  as  to  those  elements  in  the  society 
of  his  time  which  he  recognized  as  relics  of  paganism.®^  But 
as  he  saw  matters,  from  the  standpoint  of  a scholar  rather 
than  a preacher,  the  dangers  were  more  those  of  wrong  belief 
than  of  wrong  conduct,  of  heresy  rather  than  of  worldliness. 
Now  of  Christian  heresies  the  roots  lay  in  pagan  philosophy,®® 

66,  II,  I.  Cf.  n.  74  supra. 

E.g.  Ep.  io8;  127;  130.  Cf.  also  Ep.  107  to  Laeta,  on  the  education  of 
her  daughter. 

^ Ep.  99,  2,  I,  Is  this  perhaps  an  implication  that  in  other  letters  of 
Theophilus  quotations  from  classical  sources  were  to  be  expected?  A paschal 
letter  of  Theophilus,  included  in  Jerome’s  letters  because  translated  by  him, 
contains  (Ep.  100,  15,  2)  reminiscences  of  Horace  and  Publilius  Syrqs  ! 

Cf.  in  Is.  XVI,  p.  665;  Ep.  52,  2,  i;  60,  5,  3;  105,  3,  3.  The  view  of 
Augustine  is  (de  Doctr.  Christ,  ii,  63)  that  pagan  evidence  is  less  valuable  than 
scriptural. 

The  tractates  in  the  Anecdota  Maredsolana,  iii,  give  most  welcome  glimpses 
into  the  society  by  which  Jerome  was  there  surrounded.  His  adaptation  to 
his  audience  and  correspondents  was  perhaps  based  upon  I Cor.  9,  22. 

Cf.  Ep.  21,  13,  4.  Cf.  Ep.  21,  13,  8 ; adv.  lovin.  ii,  38. 

With  Ep.  21,  13,  3-9  cf.  Paulinus  in  C.  S.  E.  L.  xvi,  506,  11.  76  ff.  Of 
such  intrusions  of  paganism  Jerome  (Ep.  27,  2,  i)  asserts  himself  innocent. 

Cf.  Ep.  133,2  (quoting  Tert.  adv.  Hermog.  9).  The  characteristically 
Roman  attitude  of  Tertullian  (cf.  Taylor,  Classical  Heritage  of  the  Middle 


i62 


Arthur  Stanley  Pease 


[1919 


and  heretics  were  regarded  as  natural  successors  of  the  phi- 
losophers.®^ Consequently  the  passages  in  which  philosophers, 
as  sources  of  error,  are  mentioned  with  disparagement,  are 
many,  the  objections  against  them  being  sometimes  that  they 
intentionally  deceive,®^  more  often  that  they  wander  from 
the  truth,®^  that  they  clothe  their  thoughts  in  difficult  lan- 
guage,®^ or  that  their  lives  and  teachings  are  inconsistent 
with  Christian  standards,®^  while  the  positive  dogmas  of  all 
schools  are  frequently  attacked.®®  Yet  we  must  note  a strik- 

Ages  [1901],  no)  is  in  contfast  to  that  of  Justin,  Clement,  and  Origen,  who 
regarded  philosophy  as  a guide  to  Christianity  (cf.  Taylor,  op.  cit.  in; 
116-117;  also  Clem.  Strom,  i,  5,  28).  The  philosophical  learning  of  Clement 
and  Origen  is  noted  by  Jerome  in  Ep.  70,  4,  3;  120,  10,  2;  124,  6-7;  adv. 
Pelag.  I,  19;  contra  Ioann.  Hieros.  19  and  32. 

The  literal  meaning  and  pagan  use  of  haeresis  are  discussed  in  Comm, 
in  Titum,  p.  737,  and  in  Comm,  in  Is.  v,  p.  227,  Zeno  is  called  Stoicae  seclae 
haeresiarches.  Philosophers  and  heretics  are  combined  in  lists  of  those  of 
mistaken  views  {in  Eccl.  p.  475  ; in  Naum,  pp.  538-539,  582  ; in  Is.  iii,  p.  105  ; 
VI,  p.  272;  in  Hierem.  iv,  p.  994) ; Marcion  is  even  worse  than  Epicurus  {in 
Is.  VII,  p.  285).  The  heretics  largely  rely  on  Plato  and  Aristotle;  Tract,  de 
Ps.  77  {Anecd.  Mared.  iii,  2,  63) ; 140  {Anecd.  Mared.  m,  2,  272) ; 143  {Anecd. 
Mared.  iii,  2,  284).  In  adv.  Rufin.  iii,  39  Jerome  excuses  himself  for  having 
mistakenly  in  his  youth  taken  over  into  Christianity  certain  beliefs  from  his 
training  in  pagan  philosophy. 

In  Tract,  de  Ps.  115  {Anecd.  Mared.  iii,  2,  215)  he  quotes  Col.  2,  8,  advis- 
ing against  the  casuistry  of  philosophers ; cf.  in  Ezech.  ix,  p.  360.  To  their 
contentiousness  he  applies  a phrase  of  Tertullian  {de  Anima,  i),  philoso pirns 
animal  gloriae  (quoted  in  Ep.  66,  8,  3 ; 118,  5,  2). 

• Ep.  53,  4,  2 ; 65,  21,  2 ; in  Ezech.  1,  p.  10 ; in  Is.  xii,  p.  530 ; Tract,  de  Ps. 
83  {Anecd.  Mared.  iii,  2,  84) ; de  Ps.  106  {Anecd.  Mared.  iii,  2,  177) ; Tract,  in 
Marc.  8 {Anecd.  Mared.  iii,  2,  350) ; Homil.  in  loannem,  i {Anecd.  Mared. 
Ill,  2, 388). 

Cf.  in  Amos,  ii,  p.  283;  in  Is.  xii,  p.  492;  in  Naum,  p.  582;  in  Eccl. 
p.  475 ; adv.  Helvid.  2. 

95  E.g.,  Ep.  69,  3,  6 ; in  Is.  1,  p.  35. 

9®  Cases  are  too  numerous  to  recount.  Cf.  the  errors  of  the  Epicurean 
cosmogony  {Tract,  in  Is.  6,  in  Anecd.  Mared.  iii,  3,  no)  and  doctrine  of  pleasure 
(in  Is.  XI,  p.  473;  cf.  XIX,  p.  788),  though  in  adv.  lovin.  i,  4 he  asserts  that 
Pythagoras,  Plato,  Aristides,  Aristippus,  Epicurus,  and  others  preferred  virtue 
to  pleasure.  In  Comm,  in  Eccl.  p.  461  he  condemns  the  Epicurean  and  Cyrenaic 
denial  of  immortality.  Other  cases  of  disparagement  of  philosophers  are  Ep. 
33>  3;  i33>  2;  contra  Lucif.  14;  adv.  lovin.  ii,  7;  in  Is.  x,  p.  425;  in  Ezech. 
vm,  p.  290;  in  lonam,  p.  419;  in  Eccl.  p.  495. 


Vol.  1] 


Jerome  and  Pagan  Literature 


163 


ing  passage  in  the  Commentary  on  Daniel,  in  which  he  says : 

^‘If  you  read  all  the  books  of  the  philosophers  you  cannot  help 
finding  in  them  some  part  of  the  vessels  of  God.  In  Plato, 
for  instance,  God  as  the  fashioner  of  the  world ; in  Zeno,  the 
chief  of  the  Stoics,  the  departed  and  immortal  souls,  and  vir- 
tue as  the  sole  good,”  etc.  And  elsewhere  he  praises  the  Pla- 
tonic view  of  philosophy  as  practice  for  death, the  cardinal 
virtues  of  the  Stoics, the  philosophic  doubt  of  Carneades,^®® 
and  the  views  of  Cicero  on  friendship,  similar  in  content  to 
those  of  the  Christians.^®^ 

It  was,  then,  practical  considerations  which  influenced 
Jerome’s  attitude,  both  towards  philosophical  literature  and 
towards  other  types  as  welL^®^  In  a letter  to  Magnus, ex- 
plaining why  he  so  often  quotes  the  classics,  he  cites  the  prec- 
edent of  many  ecclesiastical  writers,  beginning  with  St.  Paul. 
His  practical  justifications  were  chiefly  the  following.  First, 
the  need  of  studying  the  classics  in  order  to  be  educated  at 
all,^®^  and  to  have  models  upon  which  to  found  the  gradually 
developing  Christian  literature.^®^  Secondly,  the  desire  to 

P.  624;  cf.  in  Tit.  p.  709.  With  Jerome’s  view  compare  Aug.  de  Doctr. 
Christ.  II,  60. 

Ep.  127,  6;  but  cf.  Ep.  60,  14,  2,  where  this  principle  pales  in  comparison 
with  that  of  I Cor.  15,  31. 

Ep.  66,  3,  I.  1°®  Contra  Ioann.  Hieros.  35. 

101  In  Mich.  II,  p.  517.  In  Ep.  79, 9, 4,  pagan  agreement  with  Christian  views 
is  noted. 

102  Cf.  the  sensible  words  of  Augustine,  de  Doctr.  Christ,  ii,  28. 

103  Ep.  70,  4,  I £f. 

10^  In  Ep.  21, 13,  9,  he  admits  that  such  study  in  pueris  necessitatis  est,  though 
this  may  refer  only  to  the  compulsion  applied  to  boys  by  their  elders.  Basil, 
ad  Adidescentes,  2 (Migne,  Patr.  Gr.  xxxi,  565-568),  observes  that  in  youth 
we  are  unprepared  for  the  mysteries  of  the  sacred  writings  and  therefore  practice 
ourselves  on  others,  as  soldiers  drill  first  in  athletics.  On  the  impossibility  of 
an  education  without  study  of  pagan  subjects  cf.  Griitzmacher,  i,  131  and  134; 
Taylor,  op.  cit.  108  ff.  To  refrain  from  such  training  would  force  the  Chris- 
tians to  accept  an  intellectual  equipment  inferior  to  that  of  the  pagans;  cf. 
Ep.  70,  6,  2.  Hence  the  objection  of  the  Christians  to  the  edict  of  Julian  forbid- 
ding them  to  teach  grammar  and  rhetoric;  cf.  Comparetti,  i^  (1896),  i4)6,  and 
n.  I ; Aug.  Conf.  viii,  10. 

13®  Thus  he  acknowledges  imitation  in  his  de  Viris  Illustrihus  of  the  homony- 


164 


Arthur  Stanley  Pease 


[1919 


meet  pagan  adversaries  on  their  own  ground/®®  a method  par- 
ticularly employed  in  assertions  to  infidels  that  if  miracles  were 
performed  and  laudable  works  done  by  pagans,  similar  miracles 

mous  work  by  Suetonius  {Ep.  47,  3,  2;  112,  3,  2;  Vir.  III.  prolog.),  and,  in  his 
translations,  of  Cicero  and  other  translators  {Ep.  57,  5,  2;  106,  3,  3;  in  Mich. 
II,  p.  480;  in  Galat.  i,  p.  387) ; and  Weston  {op.  cit.  98-99)  would  detect  in  Ep. 
50,  5,  2 a similar  recognition  of  kinship  with  Horace  and  Juvenal. 

To  express  imitation  of  pagans  by  Christians  Jerome  often  uses  a form  of 
epithet  doubtless  familiar  at  his  time.  Thus  in  Ep.  57,  12,  2 Pammachius  is 
nostrorum  temporum  Aristarchus  (cf.  adv.  Ricfm.  i,  17;  m,  30);  in  Ep.  22,  35 
Josephus  is  Graecus  Livius ; Virgil  {in  Mich,  ii,  p.  518-519)  is  poeta  suhlimis  {non 
Homerus  alter,  ut  Lticilius  (1189  Marx)  de  Ennio  siispicatur,  sed  primus  Homerus 
apud  Latinos);  with  which  compare  Ep.  121,  10,  where  Virgil  is  alter  Homerus 
apud  nos;  David  (in  Ep.  53,  8,  17)  is  Simonides  noster,  Pindarus  et  Alcaeus, 
Flaccus  quoque,  Catullus  et  Serenus ; Lactantius  {Ep.  58,  10,  2)  is  quasi  quidam 
fluvius  eloquentiae  Tullianae;  Jovinian  {adv.  lovin.  i,  i)  the  Epicurus  Christia- 
norum;  Vigilantius  {Ep.  61,  3,  3;  ironically)  is  the^o/M.y  . . . Cato;  ci.  contra 
Ioann.  Hieros.  39 : Hippocrates  Christianorum  (and  ih.  38) ; also  in  Is.  xii, 
492-493  : noster  Luscius  Lanuvinus. 

I might  here  note,  in  connection  with  this  sophistical  etiquette  of  indirect 
reference  (cf.  Wright’s  Julian  [Loeb  Classical  Library],  i,  xi),  that  Jerome 
commonly  employs  such  expressions  as  gentilium  fabidae  {Ep.  117,6,  4;  contra 
Ioann.  Hieros.  19;  in  Is.  vi,  pp.  236  and  240;  x,  p.  444;  in  Galat.  i,  p.  418), 
fabulae  poetarum  {Ep.  130,  7;  in  Is.  iv,  p.  159;  in  Hierem.  iii,  pp.  923-924; 
in  Ezech.  vi,  p.  197;  in  Dan.  pp.  652-653;  in  Osee,  ii,  pp.  53-54;  in  Naum, 
p.  $4g) , fabulae  {contra  Ioann.  Hieros.  35  ; adv.  lovin.  i,  7 ; in  Amos,  ii,  p.  289; 
in  Galat.  ii,  p.  619;  in  Ephes.  iii,  p.  651),  or  in  saecidari  litteratura  leghnus 
{in  Amos,  iii,  p.  313).  The  following  epithets  are  frequent:  insignis  poeta 
(Virgil,  in  Is.  xvi,  p.  680 ; Ovid,  in  Osee,  i,  p.  24) ; illustris  poeta  (Virgil,  Ep. 
140,  10,  in  Zach.  1,  p.  792) ; poeta  gentilis  (Virgil,  Ep.  7,  4,  i,  and  17,  2,  i,  in 
Eccl.  p.  448;  Horace,  Ep.  16,  2,  i) ; ethnicus  poeta  (Virgil,  Ep.  79,  7,  8) ; poeta 
saecularis  (Persius,  Tract,  de  Ps.  93,  in  Anecd.  Mared.  iii,  2,  130) ; ar dens  poeta 
(Lucan,  Ep.  123,  17,  in  Is.  xv,  p.  657;  called  ardentissimus  poeta  in  Comm, 
in  Ezech.  xiii,  p.  545) ; poeta  doctissimus  (Oppian,  in  Ezech.  xiv,  p.  595) ; 
philosophus  et  poeta  (Virgil,  in  Eccl.  p.  469) ; poeta  (Virgil,  in  Eccl.  pp.  452 
and  460,  in  Ezech.  ix,  p.  357) ; quidam  poeta  (Claudian,  in  Is.  viii,  p.  361) ; 
lyricus  (Horace,  in  Mich,  ii,  p.  517);  Latinus  . . . historicus  (Sallust,  m 
I,  p.  416 ; cf.  Ill,  p.  500) ; historicus  (Sallust,  adv.  lovin.  ii,  10) ; nobilis  historicus 
(Sallust,  in  Eccl.  p.  430). 

As  St.  Paul  quoted  from  Aratus,  Epimenides,  and  Menander ; cf . Ep. 
70,  2,  2 ff. ; 70,  2,  4;  130,  18;  in  Tit.  pp.  706-707;  in  Ephes.  iii,  p.  648;  in 
Galat.  II,  p.  471.  Other  examples  are  given  in  Ep.  70,  3,  and  Jerome  says 
that  Cyprian  was  criticized  for  failure  thus  to  meet  pagans  on  their  own 
ground.  An  example  of  Jerome’s  own  method  will  be  found  in  Comm,  in  Osee, 
L P-  5- 


Vol.  1] 


Jerome  and  Pagan  Literature 


i6s 


and  merits  must  be  allowed  to  Christians ; and,  per  contra, 
to  convince  Christian  readers  that  they  must  at  least  prove 
themselves  equal  in  these  virtues  to  the  pagans  whom  they 
despised®^  Thirdly,  he  finds  it  desirable  to  make  much  use 
of  history,  and  this  in  two  ways : (i)  as  necessary  for  inter- 
preting allegories,  particularly  those  in  the  prophets,^*^^  and 
(2)  as  containing  examples  of  virtues  and  vices  useful  for 
study,^^®  though  this  latter  method  was  obviously  in  need  of 
severe  restrictiond^^  Finally,  almost  all  literature  contains 
information  of  value.  In  the  spirit  of  Pliny  the  Elder  and 
Quintilian  he  remarks  that  “almost  all  the  books  of  all 

Thus  the  incredible  youth  of  Ahaz  when  he  became,  at  what  Jerome 
reckons  as  eleven  years  of  age,  the  father  of  Hezekiah,  is  paralleled  by  Greek 
and  Roman  prodigies  {Ep.  72,  2,  1-3) ; the  story  of  Jonah  and  the  whale  is 
defended  by  the  even  more  improbable  tales  which  pagan  readers  of  Ovid 
accept  {in  lonam,  p.  406) ; that  of  Nebuchadnezzar  eating  grass  is  more  worthy 
of  credence  than  many  tales  from  mythology,  such  as  Scylla,  the  Chimaera, 
the  Hydra,  the  Centaurs,  and  ancient  metamorphoses  {in  Dan.  p.  645) ; if 
Apollonius  of  Tyana  could  mysteriously  disappear,  why  could  not  Jesus?  — 
quid  magis  licet  hoc  Domino  non  licet?  {contra  Ioann.  Ilieros.  34;  cf.  35). 
But  elsewhere  {ib.  32)  he  condemns  the  use  of  pagan  arguments  by  Christians 
and  heretics;  cf.  ih.  19  and  Ep.  133,  3. 

Cf.  Ep.  66,  8,  3 ; adv.  lovin.  ii,  14.  Similar  a fortiori  arguments  are 
drawn  from  pagans  who  preferred  virtue  to  pleasure  {adv.  lovin.  i,  4),  respected 
virginity  {ih.  i,  41  ff.),  avoided  remarriage  {Ep.  54,  i,  2;  79,  7,  8;  123,  8), 
and  maintained  peaceable  dispositions  {Ep.  17,  2,  i). 

109  good  example  is  found  in  Comm,  in  Dan.  praef.  pp.  621-622.  Josephus 
is,  of  course,  constantly  employed  as'  testimony  for  the  truth  of  Scripture. 
On  the  importance  of  history  cf . Aug.  de  Doctr.  Christ,  ii,  44 ; and  for  philosophy 
as  ancillary  to  scriptural  exegesis,  Taylor,  112.  Jerome,  in  spite  of  fondness 
both  for  Virgil  and  for  the  detection  of  allegory,  did  not  consider  the  fourth 
Eclogue  as  prophetic;  cf.  Ep.  53,  7,  3.  In  fact,  though  recognizing  that  the 
pagans  themselves  employed  allegory  in  explaining  secular  writers  {in  Ezech. 
Ill,  p.  89),  he  was  not  himself  inclined  to  do  so. 

Instances  will  be  found  in  Ep.  52,  3,  5-6;  57,  3,  2 ; 58,  5,  2 ; adv.  lovin. 
n,  II ; etc. 

In  Ep.  77,  2,  3,  however,  he  derives  the  greatness*of  Fabiola  not  from  her 
Fabian  ancestry,  sed  de  ecclesiae  humilitate.  Augustine  in  the  de  Civitate  Dei 
similarly  belittles  pagan  exempla  virtutis,  for  if  it  were  too  freely  admitted  that 
worthy  characters  might  be  produced  outside  Christianity,  dangerous  results 
might  follow.  Cf.  Litchfield  in  Harv.  Stud,  xxv  (1914),  67-70. 

Plin.  Ep.  Ill,  5,  10.  X,  I,  40;  X,  I,  57. 

Ep.  70,  6,  I.  So  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  favored  gathering  roses  among 


Arthur  Stanley  Pease 


1 66 


[1919 


writers  — except  such  as  with  Epicurus  have  not  learned 
letters  — are  replete  with  learning.’’  In  scientific  matters, 
accordingly,  in  so  far  as  they  do  not  conflict  with  ecclesiastical 
dogmas,  he  freely  uses  pagan  writers.^^^  Great  use  is  also 
made  of  proverbial  expressions,  some  literary  and  some 
from  everyday  life,  and  the  satirists,  especially  Persius,  are 
favorites,  doubtless  because  of  their  moral  earnestness  and 
their  dissatisfaction  with  the  social  conditions  of  paganism. 

I have  attempted,  then,  briefly  to  trace  the  influence  upon 
Jerome  of  his  education,  the  mental  outlook  of  his  correspon- 
dents, his  theological  beliefs,  and  the  practical  necessities 
arising  in  the  hfe  of  a scholar  and  controversialist.  In  a long 
life,  full  of  critical  activity,  it  is  but  natural  that  the  pictur- 

the  thorns  of  paganism  {Carm.  i,  2,  10,  214  ff.  in  Migne,  Pair.  Gr.  xxxvii,  695- 
696),  and  similar  advice  is  found  in  Basil,  ad  Adulescentes,  (Migne,  Pair.  Gr. 
XXXI,  563  £f.).  The  works  of  Gregory,  a teacher  of  Jerome  (cf.  Griitzmacher, 
I,  177  ff.),  abound  in  classical  quotations  for  which  he  makes  no  apology  (though 
he  upbraids  Gregory  of  Nyssa  in  Ep.  ii  for  abandoning  Christian  books  for  the 
trade  of  a rhetorician;  cf.  Ep.  235),  and  Basil  takes  for  granted  that  the  young 
will  study  secular  writings.  For  the  greater  tolerance  of  the  Eastern  Church 
see  Comparetti,  F,  105,  n.  i. 

E.g.  in  explaining  eclipses  {in  Is.  vi,  p.  240).  In  Ep.  121,  6 Xenophon’s 
Oeconomicus  is  praised ; elsewhere  medical  writers  are  employed  (cf . Pease  in 
Harv.  Stud,  xxv  [1914],  81-82). 

Here  is  probably  one  explanation  of  Jerome’s  fondness  for  comedy  (another 
being  the  influence  of  Donatus) , for  the  New  Comedy  is  primarily  description 
of  life;  cf.  Ep.  54,  9,  5.  He  recognizes,  like  Arnobius  {adv.  Gent,  rv,  35)  and 
others,  the  unbecoming  nature  of  many  comedies  and  mimes;  e.g.,  Ep.  52, 
5,  7 and  147,  3 ; in  Ezech.  x,  p.  404 ; in  Ephes.  iii,  p.  666.  But  the  New  Comedy 
is  also  as  free  as  any  form  of  pagan  literature  from  corrupting  theological 
doctrines.  For  Jerome’s  quotations  from  comedy  and  mimes  see  Liibeck, 
106-115,  to  which  several  additions  might  be  made.  Tragedy  was  nearly 
negligible ; for  a few  references  to  Euripides  — indirectly  borrowed  — cf. 
Liibeck,  17-18,  and  Zockler,  328.  The  witnessing  of  tragedies  and  comedies 
is  condemned  {in  Ezech.  x,  p.  404). 

For  Horace  see  Liibeck,  162-167  ; for  Persius,  id.  195-198;  for  Juvenal, 
id.  198-199,  to  which  add  Vit.  Hilar.  12  (cf.  Juv.  10,  22)  and  Ep.  52,  5,  4 (perhaps 
cf.  Juv.  13,  242).  Persius  even  makes  his  way  into  Jerome’s  sermons:  Tract, 
de  Ps.  93  {Anecd.  Mared.  iii,  2,  130;  cf.  iii,  3,  83).  Horace’s  contempt  for 
gods  that  were  the  work  of  men’s  hands  {Sat.  i,  8,  i ff .)  is  welcomed  {in  Is.  xii, 
p.  528).  For  the  popularity  of  Persius  and  Juvenal  cf.  Sandys,  Hist,  of  Class. 
Scholarship,  F (1906),  644-645. 


3 0112  072870253 


Vol.  1] 


Jerome  and  Pagan  Literature 


167 


esque  dream  of  his  youthful  asceticism  should  have  lost  its  force, 
even  had  it  had  at  first  a greater  effect  than  the  rhetorical 
character  and  hortatory  purpose  of  its  description  would  in- 
dicated^^ Indeed,  we  may  say  that  the  subsequent  world, 
more  deeply  impressed  by  one  dramatic  incident  than  by 
many  years  passed  in  modification  or  contradiction  of  it,  has 
ascribed  to  the  vision  of  Jerome  altogether  too  much  impor- 
tance. But,  making  all  due  allowance  for  the  dream,  his  atti- 
tude, like  that  of  others,  appears,  if  not  absolutely  consistent, 
at  least  easily  intelligible.  It  was  that  of  a man  classically 
trained,  seeing  the  strong  points  but  also  the  weaknesses  of  the 
secular  literature ; in  his  youthful  enthusiasm  led  first  to  ad- 
miration and  then  to  strong,  though  temporary,  aversion  to 
the  classics ; and,  finally,  with  the  sanity  of  maturer  life  and 
the  influence  of  the  culture  of  the  Greek  East,  able  to  walk  with 
a surer  step,  realizing  that  complete  acceptance  of  the  new 
faith  did  not  necessarily  involve  total  rejection  of  what  was  of 
value  in  the  old  literature.  In  other  words,  his  progress  was 
the  familiar  succession  of  narrowly  conservative  and  unques- 
tioning upbringing,  radical  disillusionment  and  revolt,  and 
true  and  ripe  liberalism. 

Traube  well  remarks  (ii,  66):  “Trotz  der  Vision,  trotz  seine  Schwiire 
blieb  Hieronymus,  was  er  war:  Grammatiker,  Philolog,  Klassizist,  Zitaten- 
jager,  der  christliche  Aristarch,  der  es  nie  aufgegeben  hat  die  Alten  zu  lesen 
und  zu  zitieren.  Fiir  die  lateinische  Literatur  des  Mittelalters,  fiir  die  Entwick- 
lung  der  Sprache  ist  das  von  dem  gewaltigsten  Einfluss  gewesen.  Er  will  die 
Bibel  nicht  nur  fideli  sermone^  sondern  puro  sermone  iibersetzen.” 


